Benchmarking Universal Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials for Alkali-Ion Battery Kinetics
Source abstract
Abstract
Accelerating alkali-ion battery discovery requires accurate modeling of atomic-scale kinetics, yet the reliability of universal machine learning interatomic potentials (uMLIPs) in capturing these high-energy landscapes remains uncertain. Here, we systematically benchmark state-of-the-art uMLIPs, including M3GNet, CHGNet, MatterSim, MACE, SevenNet, GRACE, and Orb, against DFT baselines for cathodes and solid electrolytes. We find that the Orb-v3 family excels in static migration barrier predictions (MAE ≈ 75–111 meV), driven primarily by architectural refinements. Conversely, for dynamic transport, the GRACE model trained on the OMat24 dataset demonstrates superior fidelity in reproducing ion diffusivities and structural correlations. Our results reveal that while architectural sophistication (e.g., equivariance) is beneficial, the inclusion of high-temperature, non-equilibrium training data is the dominant driver of kinetic accuracy. These findings establish that modern uMLIPs are sufficiently robust to serve as zero-shot surrogates for high-throughput kinetic screening of next-generation energy storage materials.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Advanced Battery Technologies Research · Advancements in Battery Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Data Science, City University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong Institute of AI for Science
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, City University of Hong Kong
School of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong
Funding
City University of Hong Kong · National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ssi.2008.01.09510.1016/j.ssi.2008.01.095 ↗
2. 10.1021/ja309143810.1021/ja3091438 ↗
3. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c0010110.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00101 ↗
4. 10.1039/D5TA07200J10.1039/D5TA07200J ↗
5. 10.1038/s41467-023-37115-610.1038/s41467-023-37115-6 ↗
6. 10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b0409610.1021/acs.chemmater.7b04096 ↗
7. 10.1016/S0927-0256(97)00029-310.1016/S0927-0256(97)00029-3 ↗
8. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b0060110.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00601 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.cossms.2025.10121410.1016/j.cossms.2025.101214 ↗
10. 10.1021/acsami.4c0381510.1021/acsami.4c03815 ↗
11. 10.1088/2632-2153/adea2d10.1088/2632-2153/adea2d ↗
12. 10.1038/s41524-025-01650-110.1038/s41524-025-01650-1 ↗
13. 10.1038/s41467-022-29939-510.1038/s41467-022-29939-5 ↗
14. 10.1038/s42256-024-00956-x10.1038/s42256-024-00956-x ↗
15. Batatia I. · 2022
16. 10.48550/arXiv.2508.1793610.48550/arXiv.2508.17936 ↗
17. 10.1063/1.481232310.1063/1.4812323 ↗
18. 10.1038/s42256-023-00716-310.1038/s42256-023-00716-3 ↗
19. 10.1002/adma.20221078810.1002/adma.202210788 ↗
20. 10.48550/arXiv.2410.1277110.48550/arXiv.2410.12771 ↗
21. 10.48550/arXiv.2210.0723710.48550/arXiv.2210.07237 ↗
22. 10.1038/s43588-022-00349-310.1038/s43588-022-00349-3 ↗
23. 10.1038/s41524-024-01227-410.1038/s41524-024-01227-4 ↗
24. 10.48550/arXiv.2405.0496710.48550/arXiv.2405.04967 ↗
25. 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c0019010.1021/acs.jctc.4c00190 ↗
26. 10.1021/jacs.4c1445510.1021/jacs.4c14455 ↗
27. 10.48550/arXiv.2410.2257010.48550/arXiv.2410.22570 ↗
28. 10.48550/arXiv.2504.0623110.48550/arXiv.2504.06231 ↗
29. Meta AI, UMA. https://huggingface.co/facebook/UMA, 2023; accessed: January 13, 2026.
30. 10.1021/ct500617z10.1021/ct500617z ↗
31. 10.1038/npjcompumats.2016.210.1038/npjcompumats.2016.2 ↗
32. 10.1038/nchem.12110.1038/nchem.121 ↗
33. Bigi, F.; Langer, M. F.; Ceriotti, M. The dark side of the forces: assessing non-conservative force models for atomistic machine learning . In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025; pp 4384-4414
34. 10.48550/arXiv.2512.0364210.48550/arXiv.2512.03642 ↗